Jump to content

Man of the Match


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, katie melua said:

That's harsh on the keeper

 

He kept the score down tonight. Nothing he could do about the goals nor about the dreadful defending in front of him

 

Could have been our record defeat had it not been for him.

Well, our postwar record defeats are 8-0 which we've successfully achieved at Newcastle and Middlesbrough so Sunderland would have given it a certain North East symmetry.  

I thought the first goal was offside by the way. With VAR I'm sure we would have gone on to .,... well you knows.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lincs Owl said:

Well, our postwar record defeats are 8-0 which we've successfully achieved at Newcastle and Middlesbrough so Sunderland would have given it a certain North East symmetry.  

I thought the first goal was offside by the way. With VAR I'm sure we would have gone on to .,... well who knows.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

Take your pick...

 

:duntmatter:

 

505984085_Screenshot2021-12-30at21_51_18.png.46deb6921048ac0e1b600a77c1ebe0e9.png

 

This is why the fans ratings are so much better than WhoScored. Maybe there is a way to devise an algorithm to pick who is the best footballer in a given match one day, but they are so far off if they feed in today's game and it comes out that Paterson was the best Wednesday player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Emerson Thome said:

This is why the fans ratings are so much better than WhoScored. Maybe there is a way to devise an algorithm to pick who is the best footballer in a given match one day, but they are so far off if they feed in today's game and it comes out that Paterson was the best Wednesday player.

 

Fans' ratings, though interesting enough, are too emotional and lack any real consistency.

 

At least whoscored.com's ratings are based on objective stats. Yes, they then have to apply an algorithm to ascribe a value to these, but they're the same each game and as such are unaffected because an angry Owlstalker had one too many Stellas before posting his ratings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Fans' ratings, though interesting enough, are too emotional and lack any real consistency.

 

At least whoscored.com's ratings are based on objective stats. Yes, they then have to apply an algorithm to ascribe a value to these, but they're the same each game and as such are unaffected because an angry Owlstalker had one too many Stellas before posting his ratings.

 

Yeah, but the WhoScored algorithm is far too basic to be able to judge something a complex as a game of football. Things like pace, the weight of a pass, positional awareness, organisational skills, being on the wrong end of a bad decision, etc. just don't get factored in.

 

Paterson has committed most fouls on the team, hoofed a couple of crossed into row Z, completely failed do anything progressive with the ball into his feet, shown no movement or pace, failed to press the opposition defenders and generally had a stinker. Presumably the algorithm is giving him credit for winning 5 headers, although most of those didn't go anywhere or do anything to affect the game.

 

If the algorithm is wrong you're just feeding nonsense in and getting nonsense out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emerson Thome said:

Yeah, but the WhoScored algorithm is far too basic to be able to judge something a complex as a game of football. Things like pace, the weight of a pass, positional awareness, organisational skills, being on the wrong end of a bad decision, etc. just don't get factored in.

 

Paterson has committed most fouls on the team, hoofed a couple of crossed into row Z, completely failed do anything progressive with the ball into his feet, shown no movement or pace, failed to press the opposition defenders and generally had a stinker. Presumably the algorithm is giving him credit for winning 5 headers, although most of those didn't go anywhere or do anything to affect the game.

 

If the algorithm is wrong you're just feeding nonsense in and getting nonsense out.

 

They do a pretty decent job, I'd say.

 

And to suggest that the collective minds of Owlstalk, with all our differences of opinion, extreme scores, and long-held biases, somehow provide more accurate ratings is laughable, I'm afraid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...